The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The organising vision for telehealth and telecare: discourse analysis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To (1) map how different stakeholders understand telehealth and telecare technologies and (2) explore the implications for development and implementation of telehealth and telecare services. DESIGN: Discourse analysis. SAMPLE: 68 publications representing diverse perspectives (academic, policy, service, commercial and lay) on telehealth and telecare plus field notes from 10 knowledge-sharing events. METHOD: Following a familiarisation phase (browsing and informal interviews), we studied a systematic sample of texts in detail. Through repeated close reading, we identified assumptions, metaphors, storylines, scenarios, practices and rhetorical positions. We added successive findings to an emerging picture of the whole. MAIN FINDINGS: Telehealth and telecare technologies featured prominently in texts on chronic illness and ageing. There was no coherent organising vision. Rather, four conflicting discourses were evident and engaged only minimally with one another's arguments. Modernist discourse presented a futuristic utopian vision in which assistive technologies, implemented at scale, would enable society to meet its moral obligations to older people by creating a safe 'smart' home environment where help was always at hand, while generating efficiency savings. Humanist discourse emphasised the uniqueness and moral worth of the individual and tailoring to personal and family context; it considered that technologies were only sometimes fit for purpose and could create as well as solve problems. Political economy discourse envisaged a techno-economic complex of powerful vested interests driving commodification of healthcare and diversion of public funds into private business. Change management discourse recognised the complicatedness of large-scale technology programmes and emphasised good project management and organisational processes. CONCLUSION: Introduction of telehealth and telecare is hampered because different stakeholders hold different assumptions, values and world views, 'talk past' each other and compete for recognition and resources. If investments in these technologies are to bear fruit, more effective inter-stakeholder dialogue must occur to establish an organising vision that better accommodates competing discourses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The bio-medical discourse prevails within the academic literature addressing technology and aging [30].”
From Ambient Assisted Living Technologies for Aging Well: A Scoping Review (2016) · cites this paper as [30]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This discourse emphasizes the impairments of older adults and medicalizes aging as a disease [30].”
From Ambient Assisted Living Technologies for Aging Well: A Scoping Review (2016) · cites this paper as [30]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In an analysis of the discourses around technology and health care, Greenhalgh et al. [30] found that “different stakeholders hold different assumptions, values, and world views, talk past each other, and compete for recognition and resources.””
From Ambient Assisted Living Technologies for Aging Well: A Scoping Review (2016) · cites this paper as [30]
In the citing paper
“Policy talk about remote health services was typically technology-focused, depicting these as state-of-the-art, high-quality, efficient, and safe (16).”
From Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“This imagery resonates strongly with modernist discourseof rationally organised activity made more efficient and delivering happiness through the use of smoothly working technology.146”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method
Gee, J. P. (1999) · Cited by 6,041
The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis
Glaser, B. G. (1965) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/798843 · Cited by 4,937
Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/196734.196745 · Cited by 1,736
Information, Systems and Information Systems-Making Sense of the Field.
Taket, A. R., Checkland, P. B., & Holwell, S. (1999) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.2307/3010006 · Cited by 1,074
Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly
Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N. (2012) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6 · Cited by 985
Innovating Mindfully with Information Technology1
Swanson, & Ramiller, N. C. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148655 · Cited by 831
The Organizing Vision in Information Systems Innovation
Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (1997) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.8.5.458 · Cited by 774
Innovating Mindfully with Information Technology
Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (2004) · Cited by 617
Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure
Inglis, S. C., Clark, R. A., McAlister, F. A., Ball, J., Lewinter, C., Cullington, D., Stewart, S., & Cleland, J. G. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007228.pub2 · Cited by 614
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Davidson E Reardon J . Organizing Visions for IT Healthcare: Analysis of Discourse Surrounding Electronic Health Records. Honolulu, Hawaii: Academy of management conference, 2005.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A'Court, C., Hinder, S., Fahy, N., Procter, R., & Shaw, S. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8775 · Cited by 2,887
Self-citationVideo consultations for covid-19
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Shaw, S., & Morrison, C. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m998 · Cited by 866
Self-citationTelerehabilitation services for stroke
Laver, K., Adey‐Wakeling, Z., Crotty, M., Lannin, N. A., George, S., & Sherrington, C. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010255.pub3 · Cited by 614
Telerehabilitation services for stroke.
Laver, K. E., Schoene, D., Crotty, M., George, S., Lannin, N., & Sherrington, C. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010255.pub2 · Cited by 719
Bradford, N., Caffery, L. J., & Smith, A. C. (2016) · Rural and Remote Health · doi:10.22605/rrh3808 · Cited by 416
Metadata
- Authors
- Greenhalgh, T., Procter, R., Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., & Shaw, S.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Barts Health NHS Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Greenhalgh, Trisha
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e001574
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3401833
- OpenAlex
- W2098025845
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 10
- FWCI
- 14.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Open (London South Bank University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Queen Mary University of London
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Policies and Healthcare Reform
- Keywords
- telemedicine, telecare, organizational vision, stakeholder perspectives, competing discourses, modernist discourse, humanist discourse, change management, assistive technology, older adults, chronic disease, home automation, commodification of health care, technology implementation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
